You know, if history has shown something, it's that "real" conspiracies and big lies are easy to guess and don't last very long.
Think to Bush and the so-called WMD in Iraq. Eventually, the truth is quickly discovered.

The "usual" conspiracy theories aren't like that at all.

Wow you are astonishingly knowledgable with historical references. So would you care to enlighten me how long it took the Gulf of Tonkin incident to be discovered from conspiracy to truth?? Or maybe Operation Northwoods which JFK refused to sign; which WAS a false flag terror attack ON OUR OWN SOIL? Unless you consider 41 YEARS and 35 YEARS a "don't last very long" type of issue then you would be 100% correct.

History much??

“If one does not understand a person, one tends to regard him as a fool. -Carl Gustav Jung *I-74* *N-53* *T-95* *J-89*

Can you also enlighten me then? I must be missing the part where there is a huge gap between a fraction of people believe something has "much more to the story" due to an enormous amount of facts/witnesses/scientist vs another fraction of people who believe something simply because they are told, disregarding all factual evidence and historical references in relating subjects?

Most conspiracy theories don't have this though. Yes, there are events orchestrated by governments, but like you said, there is verifiable evidence and testimony that emerges. Are you one of those loose change people?

Most conspiracy theories don't have this though. Yes, there are events orchestrated by governments, but like you said, there is verifiable evidence and testimony that emerges. Are you one of those loose change people?

Loose change? No I use real facts and logic when I discuss these topics. And if we are referencing 9/11 there are tons of undeniable data, some which can only be explained by inside influence to cause the catastrophe. And as the same time I say this, if supposedly some "evil terrorist" attacked us in the way they did then there is no way they shouldn't easily be proven the culprits with FACTS, not a man in front of a tv telling you so.

Here are FACTS-

1- 6 of the so called hijackers were found STILL ALIVE a week after the attack and said they never flew a plane before.

2- BBC news reported that building 7 fell HALF AN HOUR before it actually did. Later they said they got faulty information and it was just a coincidence. Building 7 has about 80 or so buildings inbetween it and the towers but it was the ONLY building connected with info of the towers surveilance. so it fell??? Buildings don't just "fall" by themself, especially with SO many buildings inbetween..

3- The unaccounted for energy someone mentioned earlier. As anyone who has any knowledge of science knows that an excessive amount of extra energy (as was at the site) can just "create itself". we know there were no bombs on the plane so where did it come from???

4- Osama Bin Laden cannot be placed on FBI watch because till this day they don't have enough evidence on him to actually blame him for 9/11

5- Flight 93. You can tell me with a straight face that a plane, PLANE, crashed, left no traces of a plane, no dead bodies, no DNA, AND NO PLANE????? just a hole in the ground. THAT IS DISRESPECTFUL TO MY INTELLIGENCE.

Those are 5 facts that have yet to have been answered yet. Personally I have about 30 or so. But these 5 unanswerable facts leaves one to say, "hmm, how can this be true if my government told me the truth".

“If one does not understand a person, one tends to regard him as a fool. -Carl Gustav Jung *I-74* *N-53* *T-95* *J-89*

Those are 5 facts that have yet to have been answered yet. Personally I have about 30 or so.

While not a direct response to your question, I've enclosed a conversation I had on INTPc some time ago concerning would-be conspiracy theory plots and 9/11.

Hope you find it useful.

Originally Posted by Night

+ How could the damage create an almost perfect collapse to the footprints --

This sounds circumstantial and does not necessarily suggest anything other than an airplane injection...I havent personally examined airplane crash sites vs- non airplane, yet I will bet you dollars to donuts that a "perfect" collapse to the footprints does not necessarily suggest controlled demolition....

+ What about the reports of strage 'dust' weeks before the event? --

I don't find anything controversial here. I wonder if the "dust" was instead particulate pollution? For a quick example, see Los Angeles smog. (And no -- smog is not wholly based on climate. Travel to Chicago around any major holiday!)

+ I heard rumors about explosions minutes before the actual collapse --

probably as a result of the impact craters created by the airplanes. Force = mass x velocity. Planes are huge and move quickly -- it seems that tiny explosions would naturally preface something like the structural collapse of a skyscraper. It could range from gas pipes bursting or windows exploding as a result of the many, many fires the planes certainly created...

+ I've heard heavy damage in the lobby area could only be caused by a bomb --

see above answer for probable explanation. Also, energy tends to choose the path of least resistance when expanding (especially when inside a closed system, as was partially the case with the WTC buildings.) Whatever energy (whether concussive, heat-based, etc) wasnt able to immediately escape via the wound fissures or through windows would probably have been forced downward, so as to reconcile its output)

+ I've heard that the melting point of steel is too great to be melted in the manner it is claimed --

[I]this point fails to address the importance of the impact energy generated by the primary impact source (airplanes) and secondary impact sources that probably increased the efficiency of the flames (gas via compromised pipes; office materials; whatever..). So, as this point doesnt address the importance of the primary impact source in terms of influencing the efficiency of the fires it subsequently produced, I don't believe it can be logically valid in its current state.[/I]

+ What about the removal of security measures days before the event? --

odd, but not necessarily related. Many organizations rotate their workforce / resources based on perceived need and financial constraints. As 9/11 was a wholly unique experience, it doesnt seem likely that individuals were prepared (security measures or not) to defend against such a catastrophic event. Don't forget, pre-9/11 intelligence was a sloppy maze of miscommunication between departments and misrepresentation of data. The 9/11 Commission corroborated that perspective in their report.

+ I've heard reports of "suspicious" 'construction' work on some floors a few days before the event +

[I]I just fixed my faucet this morning because of a leak. Does this mean I'm trying to create an environment that would be hospitable for terrorists? Seriously though, most buildings require almost-perpetual care in terms of ensuring fundamental building code is followed (repair of fire alarms; elevator diagnostics; air-conditioning repair... Plus, just because "construction work" was reported, it does not logically bridge our outcome to a domestically-managed affair. Haha..when would these individuals meet to discuss their nefarious deeds? The WTC was a 24-hour saloon, friends. As the economic nexus of NYC (and, arguably, one of the most important buildings in Western culture), I find it highly unlikely that a team could outfox the combined perceptions of thousands of casual workers. This isn't the movies.[/I]

+ What about the collapse of wtc 7, which was further away than some other buildings, that are still standing

I'm not a structural engineer, so I couldnt dissect the academics of this one. Yet, do people scream conspiracy when a car accident kills only certain passengers and leaves others unharmed? Moreover, it doesnt seem logical to assume that cancer affects only certain folks while deliberately avoiding others? The answer remains above my academic experience but probably deals with the dynamic interaction of energy relative to the debris produced by the first WTC collapses

+ The televised people standing in the impact gashes suggest a low temperature or no fires at all +

I'm guessing not everyone stood in the same place....

+ The 'terrorists' had to had sophisticated knowledge about the buildings way of construction to predict their collapse. Note that even experts are not able to agree on a definite (non conspiracy) explanation +

While I'm certainly not an expert on structural engineering, I do believe it is logical to assume that intangible, providential occurrences assisted in the ultimate success of their plot. That, and I feel it is dismissive to assume that the operatives responsible did not do an excessive amount of research before their attacks (flight planning; financial investment; political maneuvering -- see Osama's killing of a critical Northern Alliance leader on 9/9 as a way to grease the wheels for the secrecy surrouding his exile by the Taliban). Also, many of these nutjobs had advanced degrees...see Mohammad Atta as a quick example.

+ I find compelling the strange choice of time for the execution of the attacks. If the 'terrorists' wanted to kill as many poeple as possible, why did they attack in the morning rather than at noon? +

This is a strange point. I dont think its really relevant as deducing the implied motivations of others is an impossible task to undertake. But, why not in the early morning hours? Its possible they wanted to capitalize on collateral damage afflicted to those not directly in the WTC (early morning commuters; pedestrians..etc)

+ What about the post 9/11 Anthrax terror (do you remember?); (to keep important poeple quiet?)

I remember. I don't feel like its related, though. This question is a great example of after-the-fact reasoning. Maybe they just wanted people to take more time away from the office? Sounds silly? It's as credible as the alternative point offered by this question (See contemporary findings for final data)

+ Most importantly: both buildings collapsed in less than 10 seconds 'free fall' style with absolutely no resistance from the lower structure

Gravity is a bitch. The destruction we see in films isn't always real, guys. Buildings can cave-in and decimate their support structures quickly. Again, its all about force and its opposition to gravity. Why not 10 seconds?

As a final note, I think you will notice that many of the bullet points offered by conspiracy theorists dont live up to the standards they demand of others. I think you will notice that most work to create doubt vs. producing legitimate, falsifable, controlled, empirical data. That alone should suggest quite a bit.....

I see that DEFINITELY was not a response to my facts. Those were more of the insignificant "theories" that are thrown around for the most part. Except for building 7 which was included. But no I don't believe that the ONLY building related to the incident falls magically when EIGHTY OR SO buildings are inbetween, some with 3x or 4x the damage as building 7.

As far as my other points, yes I do believe there is much more to the "official story" because I deal in facts and logic. And as anyone can see from my last post my logic is undeniable.

Kendoiwan- lol at "physics anyone"!

“If one does not understand a person, one tends to regard him as a fool. -Carl Gustav Jung *I-74* *N-53* *T-95* *J-89*

Night, if energy follows the path of least resistance (which i agree with, although not that impact tens and tens of stories above caused lobby explosions but not not in beteen.), wouldn't that mean there would be even less energy to calculate potential damage to the columns which "officially" were the failures which brought down the buildings?

I knew people that were in the towers (all but one survived) when they were hit, and they ahd no explosions in their offices.

The original conspiracy theory was anti-semitism. And it led to the Shoah.

Conspiracy theory is essentially pathological that becomes dangerous when it is taken up by the State.

Individual conspiracy theorists are cranks. But groups with a conspiracy theory as part of their ideology are dangerous.

Conspiracy theories are usually characterised by ultra rationality, that is, rationalisation, and are impervious to evidence or even common sense.

Cults are usually chacterised by a conspiracy theory. Jung, for instance, believed that Germany lost WW I because of the famous, "Stab in the back".

And Jim Jones believed the USA Government was out to get him, so he gave his followers Cool Aid to drink.

And of course we all know, don't we, that the Jews killed Christ - they are Christ killers and Deicides.

And so the conspiracy theorists march on their merry way through history.

Is this comedy?

In know way does this Present FACTS to disprove conspiracy theories as delusional or illogical, it's just opinion derived with autrocious grammer.

Furthermore, in no way does this address my previously presented facts. NO mention of 1964, where the majority of the population believed the Gulf Of Tonkin incident was the most respectable and truth based reason to enter the Vietnam War, just to find out 41 years later we were LIED TO by all our Government officials, and ENTERED THE WAR ON FALSE PRETENSES. NO mention of Operation Northwoods in 1962, (which JFK, the only signature left refused to sign) which was believed to be a myth because no way our own Government would PLAN an attack on our own U.S. innocent citizens and frame Cuba right? 35 years later the documents are released to the public by an U.S. Federal Agency (JFK Assassination Review Board) to turn that former conspiracy into truth. NO mention of Hitler and the Reichstag Fire, where almost 4/5 of the German population truly believed they were attacked by Russia. We know how that story ends.. But hey, who cares about recent history right?

Most of all, completely oblivious to the 5 undeniable facts of 9/11 I posted earlier. Not some false, uninvestigated theories just thrown out due to lack of knowledge, education, or understanding, 5 undisputable facts.

Please, I would appreciate at least semi-comprehension of facts, history and logic before any of these issues are addressed. Not a, "well you're wrong even tho I have no argument and your facts and historical references are undeniable" related response

“If one does not understand a person, one tends to regard him as a fool. -Carl Gustav Jung *I-74* *N-53* *T-95* *J-89*